Subject : Re: Genesis chapters 9 and 10 (More research by this author)

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Dan I'd like you to have a look at Genesis chapter 9 verses 18 and 19 and
then go to Genesis chapter 10 verses 1 to 5 or whatever. Verses 18 and 19
imply that the Neanderthals could indeed have migrated out imediately after
the flood YES THIS IS POSSIBLE and this comes under a date of 2347 BC THE
DATE OF THE FLOOD--WE DO NOT HAVE A WAY TO VERIFY THE EXACT DATE OF THE
FLOOD?nand that when you get to Genesis chapter 10 It says that "The Sons
of Gomer were devided in their
lands and nations in the Isles of the Gentiles. Now given that the devision
occured in 2247 BC WHERE DO YOU GET THE MEANS TO DOCUMENT THIS DATE? does'nt
this give us an exact date for the time of theirarrival in Britain and Europe
shortly before Babel and indeed Babel occuredin 2242 BC (HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT
THIS?) exactly as you say 5 years later so
this implies that they were here shortly before the start of the ice age in 2242
BC THE ICE AGE WOULD
NOT NECESSARILY STARTED ON AN EXACT DATE; If as you say and
Larry Pierce in Ussher's Annals Manetho and Gorgius sincellus both date
Babel to 2242 BC OK BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW AND WHY THEY CHOSE THAT
DATE--THERE ARE ALMOST NO CREATIONISTS TODAY SAYING WHICH DATE THE BABEL
LANGUAGE CONFUSION OCCURED. DID THEY HAVE A MEANS TO VERIFY THIS DATE?and
this is a legitimate starting point for the ice age according to Larry Pierce.
WHY

Of further interest to our enquiry is the fact
that we now have an exact dates range from 2247 BC the creationist
chronology for the palaeolithic through to 1484 BC and 2520 annomundi .
However there are one or two problems; and that is that according to After
the Flood by Bill Cooper; Ireland and Britain were devoid of habitation
accept for a few giants and that these islands were uninhabited according to
Bill Cooper for 864 years after the flood. Is there a way around this
loophole? John NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN

ON THE DIVISION IN THE DAYS OF PELEG

Dan you probably remember me saying about the 864 years mentioned in Bill's book
"After the Flood" that Ireland and indeed Britain must have been
uninhabbited for this length of time. If however I have found the daye from
Genesis 10 verse 25 this would seem to imply a date that the neanderthals
arrived in Britain and Europe if they migrated out sometime after 2347 BC hense
arriving in Britain and Europe say in 2247 BC and this would be 5 years before
Babel if as you say the date according to Manetho was 5 years THE INFORMATION I
SENT YOU MENTIONED THE TOWER OF BABEL BEING BUILT 5 YEARS AFTER PELEG WAS
BORN--NOT SURE OF YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS INFORMATION later for the Tower of Babel
in 2242 BCthen it would have taken the neanderthals roughly 100 years to reach
Britain. Interestingly according to Ussher's annals of the world which I have at
home; and indeed Larry Pierce this is the self same precise date given by
Gorgius Sincelus; so we have two people quoting the same sources. WE NEED THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SO THAT WE COULD CONVINCE OTHER CREATIONISTS--DO WE
HAVE MORE EXTENSIVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION? Naturally enough as you
correctly say that "The further away from Babel as is the case with Britain
then the later these civilizations or Industries in
the case of Britain would have started ;so thdocument this we need to look at
Bill's book and see what it actually says concerning the length of time Britain
and Ireland was uninhabitted (Accept for a few giants) . The other point is that
Larry Pierce informs me that the nearer to the flood date one gets; then the
more inacurate these dates become but I do have some faith in you Dan I AM A
NOVICE AT CHRONOLOGY--NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD HAVE FAITH IN ME--I HAVE ONLY
ENCOURAGED YOU TO FIND WAYS TO BETTER SUBSTANTIATE A DATE BEFORE SAYING
"THIS IS THE DATE THAT THIS OCCURED" so it is on the cards that my
time line could be a bit "strained". Prof Andy Macintosh once informed
me that the Palaeolithic/mesolithic started sometime near the time of Abraham so
the Neanderthals and Swanscombe could have been here about 2000 BC in a stone
age industry at the same time Egypt was experiencing something a little more
advanced . I WOULD DISAGREE--REMEMBER THE FIRST YOU CAME ACROSS THIS SITE WAS
THE DISCOVERY OF A NEANDERTHAL FOUND IN CHAIN LINK ARMOUR. I AM NOT
CONVINCED THAT NEANDERTHALS WERE ALL STONE AGE BUT PROBABLY OF VARYING
TECHNOLOGY DEPENDING ON HOW DECULTURED THEY BECAME. SO THEY AT FIRST HAD A
HIGH DEGREE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANY OF THEM LOST MUCH OR MOST OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY
AS THEY BEGAN SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF "HAND TO MOUTH EXISTANCE' Say
Iron industry for example. Please let me know which of the dates you prefur for
the begginning of Neanderthal Swanscombe. I HAVE NO IDEA If the
Neanderthal Swanscombe arrived in Britain say 2247 BC then they would have
arrived in Britain when the earth was devided shortly WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS
DIVIDED: THE EARTH--CONTINENTAL DRIFT/SPRINT (UNLIKELY), THE LANGUAGES (
MORE LIKELY), MEASURED OR SURVEYED (MOST LIKELY)
before or 5 years before Babel if this is when Peleg was Bourne and that all the
tribes were divided in their own lands. John.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the
competition now
--0-580164758-1133623864=:14608
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dan you probably remember me saying about the 864 years mentioned in Bill's
book "After the Flood" that Ireland and indeed Britain must have
been uninhabited for this length of time. If however I have found the daye
from Genesis 10 verse 25 this would seem to imply a date that the neanderthals
arrived in Britain and Europe if they migrated out sometime after 2347 BC henCe
arriving in Britain and Europe say in 2247 BC and this would be 5 years before
Babel if as you say the date according to Manetho was 5 years later for the
Tower of Babel in 2242 BCthen it would have taken the neanderthals roughly 100
years to reach Britain. Interestingly according to Ussher's annals of the
world which I have at home; and indeed Larry Pierce this is the self same
precise date given by Gorgius Sincelus; so we have two people quoting the same
sources. Naturally enough as you correctly say that "The further away
from Babel as is the case with Britain then the later these
civilizations or Industries in the case of Britain would have started ;so thd
ocument this we need to look at Bill's book and see what it actually says
concerning the length of time Britain and Ireland was uninhabited (Accept for
a few giants) . The other point is that Larry Pierce informs me that the
nearer to the flood date one gets; then the more inacurate these dates become
but I do have some faith in you Dan so it is on the cards that my time line
could be a bit "strained". Prof Andy Macintosh once informed me that
the Palaeolithic/mesolithic started sometime near the time of Abraham so the
Neanderthals and Swanscombe could have been here about 2000 BC in a stone age
industry at the same time Egypt was experiencing something a little more
advanced . Say Iron industry for example. Please let me know which of the
dates you prefer for the beginning of Neanderthal Swanscombe. If the
Neanderthal Swanscombe arrived in Britain say 2247 BC then they would have
arrived in Britain
when the earth was divided shortly before or 5 years before Babel if this is
when Peleg was Bourne and that all the tribes were divided in their own lands.
John.

JHF to PHILIP BELL

Dear
Philip here is confirmation that the original research I did on the date of
2247 BC is correct as confirmed by your goodself and it's interesting to note
that from a simple straight forward reading of the Genesis text; and note this
word "devision in the days of Peleg happened according to Larry Pierce
who informs me that the "Peleg" incident or at least his birth
happened according to Gorgius Sinsellus 5 years before the building of the
tower of Babel. And is'nt also interesting tonote that Genesis 10 verse 5
tells us that "By the sons of Gomer &c were the "Isles of the
Gentiles devided (Note this word devided) in their lands after the flood ; so
according to this research currently being undertaken by this author proves
beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earliest Neanderthals were Japethites and
indeed celts. John

JHF TO BILL COOPER

Dear Bill Dan Janzen and myself have been discussing the very earliest
inhabitants of Britain and according to him the earliest migration was
imediately after the Flood (But dont worry about it) . Creationist research
puts the earliest neanderthals who were according to this research sons of
Japheth (Gomer &c) and having read a couple of nights ago in Genesis
chapter 9 verses 18 and 19 "That by the sons of Noah was the whole
earth overspread and this implies a direct migration to Europe and
Britain from the Arrarat mountains. Having got to Genesis chapter 10 to
verse 5 it also says that by the sons of Gomer were the Isles of the
Gentiles devided in their nations after the flood and this seems to give an
arrival date for the earliest neanderthals in Britain and Europe at the time
of the dIvision which according to Genesis is 101 years after the flood
or 2247 BC. I am further advised by Larry Pierce that the Tower of babel was
built according to Gorgius Sincelus in 2242 BC . This gives an arrival date
shortly before the ice age of 5 years before 2242 BC which as you know is my
date for the ice age at the time of the confosion of toungs &C. As I say
I don't really want to worry you with this but the evidence seems to support
a dates range from 2247 BC through to 1484 BC with the neolithic bronze and
Iron industries . John

This is good, John. Can't reply at length - chronic fatigue.

Good morning Joshua, Doug,
Attached is a combination of the text of a presentation I did this week and
some of the info I had on PowerPoint.
I can't send you the PowerPoint doc. itself because of its size, but I think
you will get a good idea from the attached.
<<Anthropology, nations & languages & slide info.doc>>
Comments are welcome as always.
Greetings in Christ

There are also two others: Totecs & Mayans have creation
chronologies as
well. I will have to see if I can find them. One dates creation
within a
few years and lends support to Arch Bishop Usher. If we are going to
get
respect we have to have lots of sources of documentation from historical
accounts. You have been a good team member--you have not over reacted
to
any constructive criticism I have sent your way.

At bottom--it appears China was settled by anscestors of Sin and the
Hittites.

.......................................Here's what he
wrote....................................

How and when did the oldest civilizations come about, according to recorded
evidence?

According to Gen. 10:22-25, Peleg was born in the 5th generation after Noah.

Peleg means "division" and he received that name probably because
the land -
the Hebrew word for land is "erets" - was divided in those days.

"Erets" can also mean nations, and this then possibly refers to
the division
of all humans in different groups due to new languages created at Babel.

Because the exact date of Peleg's birth is known, the Babel events can
therefore be dated to about 100 years after Noah's flood.

The connection between Babel and Babylon is generally acknowledged.

Although the best-known ancient secular historians don't mention the Flood
and the language events at Babel, they accept that:

· Civilization originated
in the Middle-East;

· Probably close to
Babylon; and

· Distributed slowly from
there.

Seen overall, these timescales of the historians are much larger than the
Biblical timescales, but certain of there writings give wonderful support
for the Biblical information.

For example:

· Manetho, the Egyptian
historian of the 3rd century BC, wrote that
the Tower of Babel was built 5 years after the birth of Peleg.

He therefore acknowledged both the existence of Babel and of the Biblical
figure Peleg.

· The Latin writer
Simplicius wrote in the 6th century AD the
following:

o The Greek Alexander the Great
defeated Darius the Mede in 331 BC.

o Thereafter he marched onto
Babylon, and received 1903 years of
astronomical observations from the Chaldeans.

Slide 53

o The Chaldeans asserted that
their observations dated back to the
founding of Babylon.

o This places the founding of
Babylon at 2234 BC.

This is only roundabout 13 years after the events at the Tower of Babel
according to the Biblical information.

Slide 54

· The Byzantine historian
Manasses wrote that:

o The ancient Egyptian state had
existed 1663 years until it was
conquered by Persia in 526 BC.

This places the founding of Egypt at 2188 BC - about 60 years after the
birth of Peleg.

Mizraim, the grandson of Noah and the son of Ham therefore should have lead
his group of people at that stage into the current Egypt.

Slide 55

· Eusebius, the historian
and bishop of 4 centuries AD, recorded
that

o The 1st king of the Greeks
started reigning in 2089 BC.

o This is about 160 years after
the birth of Peleg.

Slide 56

Note that:

· The Babilonians, the
Egyptians and the Greeks all spoke completely
different languages.

· There kingdoms were
established after the creation of different
languages at the Tower of Babel.

Slide 57

· The further from Babel
the later there kingdoms appeared:

Slide 57

o Babilon the closest and only ~
13 years after the language
confusion at Babel;

Slide 57

o Egypt 2nd closest and ~ 60 years
after Babel; and

Slide 57

o Greece further and ~ 160 years
after Babel.

Slide 57

As already mentioned the 1st documented dinasty of China was 2256 BC to 2205
BC.

This time slot therefore also ties up with the Bible and the Chinese
language also differs completely from the 3 mentioned above, consistent with
the language confusion at Babel.

Dan I have been advised by Answers in Genesis that the ice age started about
101 years give or take 5 years for this incident WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE FOR
THIS--I HAVE NOT SEEN INFORMATION FROM MICHAEL OARD CONFIRMING THIS FACT AND
FEW OTHES WOULD BE QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION. and the
catastrophe at
Babel so would'nt it make sense to infer a date given these circumstances. A
nother young earth creationist has similar views to me on this and he gives
an approximate date for the start of the ice age. His name is Graham A
Fisher ( Author of "Speak through the Earthquake Wind and Fire") You
yourself gave me some "Very interesting chronology" and you said
yourself
that these dates lend support to Ussher. I have always been brought up to
respect Ussher's dating and this is the modle that must go with. IT IS
UNLIKELY THAT USSHER GOT IT 100% RIGHT. You say
Egypt for example started in 2188 BC (Yes I agree) If my chronology is not
correct then using Ussher's time line as you have done in the previous email
can you give a date for the earliest settlers in Britain. This I have done
using your adviCe. I AM NOT SURE THAT I HAVE COME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION--HOW WOULD YOU DATE THE EARLIEST SETTLERS --BY WHAT METHOD?'
John

WERE THE NEANDERTHALS JAPHETHITES?

Dan I am now ready to publish this date for the earliest neanderthals in
Britain; WHY?--WE STILL DO NOT KNOW and contrary to what we thought about them
being of Hamitic stock have turned out to be Japethites as you have already
seen from Bill Cooper's reply to me. WE KNOW THAT THE PICTS WERE JAPETHITES
BUT I HAVE NOT YET SEEN EVIDENCE THAT THE NEANDERTHALS WERE JAPETHITES.
I have also sent an email to Philip Bell at Answers in Genesis and he seems
also to be in agreement so you see Dan I've been doing good homework as you've
suggested and have now improved on my chronology as you say. I would also add
that I'm very grateul to you for your ( and in deed in my view ) much needed
constructive criticism because it really has helped me to make inferences
especially a simple straight forward reading of the Genesis text is concerned
chapters 9 v 18 and 19 and chapter 10 verses 1 to 5. I don't want to
sound as though I'm putting myself above creation scientists but the fact of
the matter is there is fruit still out there waiting to be "picked off
the tree" So who knows maybe I have a natural gift for this sort of thing
; I don't know and I might indeed go down in the history of the creation
movement as "The Man with the Dates" John WE HAVE A LOT
OF WORK TO DO BEFORE WE CAN BE VERY DOGMATIC ON MOST OF THE DATES. BILL
COOPER DID YEARS OF RESEARCH AND HIS WORK IS HIGHLY RESPECTED BUT NOW YOU ARE
TRYING TO ASSIGN DATES TO THINGS THAT HAVE LITTLE OR NO HISTORICAL INFORMATION
TO VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE DATES.

SHOCK DYNAMICS IMPACT IN THE DAYS OF PELEG? (Mike
Fisher)

Dear John,

You mentioned Peleg in your last email, and I note

a recent article from the Institute for Creation

Research. They point out that in the passages

Gen 7:11 to 8:4 the waters of the Flood "prevailed"

for 150 days over 5 months. That means each

month (or at least their average) was exactly

30 days, unlike today where 5 months are over

150 days because the Earth rotates slightly more

slowly. Apparently the events of the Flood did

not cause this slowing down. It must have been

a later event, one large enough to affect the

Earth's angular momentum. Perhaps the Shock

Dynamics impact did occur "in the days of Peleg".

Something to consider.

Mike

DJ TO JHF ON ETHNIC ORIGINS OF NEANDERTHALS

But why 2247 BC, why not 2246 BC or 1897 BC for that matter? I could
make a claim that it is the 1897 BC date and how would you prove me wrong.
Why would your date be any better than mine?

You have to be careful with dates and have a basis for their establishment.

Lets say I decided on 1897 BC and sent out a bunch of emails and some people
gave me the benefit of the doubt because they agreed with some of the other
material I had written in the same email. Would my date be accurate?
Would I have contributed something worthwhile to creation science. No.
I have yet to see evidence, otherwise it appears that you are "pulling
dates out of the hat" just like my 1897 BC date.

I do have a lot of evidence that the date should be 1897 BC. Do you want
to hear my evidence? Now I could go on and provide a logical basis for
picking this date. Honestly give this all some thought.

JHF TO DJ

Dan As you have already seen I have consulted with Bill Cooper over the date
of 2247 BC. If as you maintain the neanderthal were Hamites or cainanites
whatever the case maybe I agree this could be so. But the ownly ones we have
left are "Swanscombe" who could have been Japethites reaching the
"Isles of the Gentiles " in 2247 BC and annomundi 1757. One of
these groups most certainly did reach the "Isles" at this date and
this is also borne out by Answers In Genesis as you've already seen. And
must respectfully say to you Dan: "I know what I read" and to say
that it is not based on the historical record is very respectfully
"absurd" and I am too honest my friend to invent dates that have
nothing to do with the historical record. If I did this it would be
downright dishonest. and people like Bill Cooper and other people from
Answers in Genesis can vouch for my integrity and Honesty. I will say to you
however that I've also consulted with Larry Pierce over the date of 2247 BC
and we must wait and see what he has to say then I can forward the reply on
to you; so meanwhile the search goes on . John

DJ TO JHF

Bill Cooper backed up your effort in general. However, Bill did not
comment on the specifics of your dates. You don't have enough evidence
to back up all of your dates. But your effort is not in vain.
Eventually we will get there, one baby step at a time. I want to
encourage you but I find that you tend to jump to conclusions without having
enough data to back them up. I do not mean to be critical but helpful as
I desire just as much as you to be able to come up with a working chronology.

What is in these scriptures which backs up your dates? I do not think
the division of Peleg's time was a division of languages but I am not sure.

John Hext-Fremlin

Hi Dan you probably rememeber in my previous email that I presented the
testimoney of Mike Fischer . As you say it seems that the language
confusion started at the time of Babel and also the metior impact that
Mike testifies to in his email to me as you've already seen. However as
you say we mus'nt jump to conclusions although the Genesis text implies
or at least seams toimply that the "Sons of Japeth; Gomer &c
were in the "Isles of the Gentiles" and devided in their lands
and nations and this does'nt imply catastrophies at this time; so it
needs to be made absolutely clear as to what we mean by the word
devision ; Given that my book by Larry Pierce "The Annals of
the World (Ussher)" gives 2247 BC for the devision and 2242 BC for
the Building of Babel. As I say and as you have said Egypt started in
2188 BC so the question remains "Was there or was'nt there a
dispersion " before Babel because Genesis says "And the whole
earth was of One language and one tounge". This it seems to me is
the problem that must be resolved. I would be most interested though Dan
how and where you obtain your date of 1897 BC for the earliest
neanderthals in Europe or be they Swanscombe. I also aggree with you
that the furthest away from Babel the more behind other eastern
civilizations In this case Britain and the "Isles" would
be . but we need to know what exactly it was that happened at the time
of the birth of Peleg and devision 2247 BC? John Postscript : It
might help if I also consult with Larry Pierce.

DJ TO JHF

I can see that I have finally made my point...

I could not find any other way to make my point. If you read the
last email closely you would find that I just arbitrarily made up the
date 1897 BC. I have absolutely no evidence. I do not
think we are ready to say for any degree of certainty that the dates
are anything more than guesses. When we get back this far it
would be nice to have several historical documents from independant
sources all agree before we can come to any degree of certainty.
What we can develop at this time is a very loose construct of guesses
and some statements from historians which may or may not be all that
accurate. If I were you I would be much more cautious before
assigning an exact date. You could easily be as much as 500
years off in many cases.

The division of Peleg may not even be a division of land or languages.

JHF TO DJ

Dan I was looking in Ussher's annals under date of 2107 annomundi and
1897 BC. Now is'nt it interesting that it is in the time of Abraham and
contemporary with the events that happened at Sodom and Gomorrah; but I
can't find any where in the Genesis text where it implies there was a
migration to Britain. On the other hand you have the evidence to which
Mike Fischer has testified on the five 30 day months which would
indicate a catastrophe at Babel. Did you get the other email I sent you
today? John

DJ TO JHF

Yes I got your other email. There is no place that talks about a
migration to Genesis but you will find the passage in Ezekiel 18 is
interesting. It talks about the merchants of Tarshish and the
young lions thereof. It is likely that Britian was a merchant of
Tarshish and also the US has had visits by Merchants from Tarshish.
It is possible that the US and Britian fit into Biblical prophecy in
this manner.

I would be highly suspect of any work on a catastrophe at Babel that
divided the languages. So far this sounds most like a
supernatural event that was not necessarily accompanied by physical
damage.

JHF to LARRY PIERCE

Dear Larry Dan Janzen informs me that there could have been a
migration to >the "isles" in 2107 and 1897 BC. However we
need to be absolutely clear >whether Genesis chapter 10 verse 5
says By the sons of Japeth and Gomer >were they devided in the
"Isles of the Gentiles" in their lands and >nations.
(Notice the word "Divided") The devision took place in 2247
BC at >the birth of Peleg. ( a significant event ) although before
Babel ; the >earth was of one language and speech. This is even
before you get to Gen >chapter 11. Chapter 9 verses 18 and 19 imply
that there was a migration to >the isles immediately after the
flood so I don't see where Dan Janzen gets >his date of 1897 BC
from although he could be right. Given the above >scriptures am I
correct in saying some Japethites reached Britain and >Europe at
the time of the Birth of Peleg? I know we need to exercise >caution
on this . What is your view Larry? John

LP TO JHF

*No likely, Greece was not settled until 2089 BC, Egypt until
2188 BC and Babylon at 2234 BC. I would favour the later date of 1897.

JHF TO DJ

Dan here is some very interesting chronology info. As from the
dates you sent me (post Babel) I have as I said I would consult
with Larry Pierce about the above Genesis Text and my view about
the 2247 BC date. However Larry informs me (Strange as this may be
that he favours the later date of 1897 BC and 2107 annomund and
this date is actually in Ussher's "Annals of the World"
although as you say you made this date up. But if this is so it
needs investigating although I still have this"obsession with
the date of 2247 BC for the neanderthals. Larry informs me as do
your good self Dan thatGreece was not settled untill 2089 BC;
Babylon 2234 BC and indeed (and I fully agree with this): Egypt
2188 BC. Mr Charles S Kimball in his "Genesis
Chronicles" part two says there is some extra Biblical
evidence that the sons of Ham settled where they should not have
gone contrary to the agreement they made at the time of the
devision at the Birth of Peleg and he mentions the book of
"Jubilees". At the moment I'm stuck with the exact
chronology which is given by Bill Cooper in His "After the
Flood " and my industry and chronology table for Britain and
Ireland is based on this work and also Charles S Kimball has also
given me some help in this connection to help me construct the
table for Britain and Ireland; but like you say I really need a
"working chronology" so we can see when the
earliest neanderthals came into Britain and Europe. This 1897 BC
date sounds interesting and I wondered whether there is any text
from one of the old testament books that might help us to nail
this date> John

DJ to JHF

The book of Jubilees. Here once again we must not be
gullable about these texts. The book of Jubilees was
probably written just before the time of Christ and the book of
Enoch does not appear to be authentic either. I would not
rely on these books for anything other than for a feeling of the
Gnostic literature that was floating around at the time.
This books seem to be completely made up--at least that is what I
think.

John, I hope I have not had fun at you at your expense
regarding the date 1897. I laughed as I read the email
that you sent to Larry. This further illustrates that
you have to be very careful with the process by which you
establish your dates. Just because someone says that
something happened on a particular date does not mean that it
really did. Anyway--I apologize. Upon what
authority does Larry hold to these dates.

In almost every communication I have had with you I have tried
to get you to steer away from exact dates and move in the
direction of date ranges. As you learn more you will be
able to make the date ranges more and more narrow as the
surety of your work will undoubtedly increase. You have
done a great job of contacting the individuals that I have
suggested. You are quite the sleuth, having found Bill
Cooper's email address.

I like the fact that you are "stuck" with the dates
given by Bill Cooper since they are the only dates with which
I can see were arrived at with good historical inquiry.

You were right in wondering where I got the date of 1897 BC.
That is definely a good move away being gullible about dates.
I am glad you questioned the date. Perhaps you could
have even fired off an e-mail to me and asked me to
substantiate the date

JHF to DJ

Dan : This will tickle you . I've been sleuthing with
Craig White and I'm or have sent him my industry and
chronology table for Britain and Ireland. By the way Dan
you don't have to worry about having a laugh with me. I do
like a bit of humour especially the one to Larry you told
me about regarding 1897 BC. You see Dan I always like to
do my "good home work like you say" and a kind
of cross referencing if you can call it that .Can you by
the way substantiate your date for neanderthal ie the earliest
ones in Britain of 1897 BC. As for where does Larry
Peirce's dates . He is the author of annals of the world
and as you know I do posess this very interesting book. So
Quite clearly this date of 1897 BC was'nt pulled "out
of a hat" But has basis in reality as I've seen
in Ussher's annals dated under annomundi 2107. John

DJ to JHF

Ok, I really did not know Larry is the author of annals
of the world. I have looked at the first few
chapters but did not find much new information
concerning early history but it is a good reference
book.

1897: I thought after telling you I made it up
that the date would go away but yet we still keep
talking about it. Well obviously quite a bit
happened that year as is happening in 2005 AD but I
don't have a very good idea what happened that year.

I am very interested in what you have been discussing
with Craig. Could you cc me on the discussion.

By the way have you found anyone interested in pursuing
the genetic side of origins (tracing people groups back
to their genetic origins--a son/grandson of Noah or
early patriarch? What do you think of his book
Origin of Nations?

JHF to DJ

Dan I'm glad that you put that idea to me about the
date of 1897 BC and 2107 annomundi. I have to say to
you that it is indeed recorded in Ussher's Annals of
the world and has some bearing as I said before on
the time of the catastrophe at Sodom and Gomorah.
And can you substanciate this date; and indeed where
did you get it from; I would be most interested to
know . On the other hand of course as you yourself
have said according to an email of a few weeks back
; and you aggreed with me that it "was quite
possible for the japthites to have taken 100 years
after the flood to reach "the isles of the
gentiles in time forthis significant event of the
birth of Peleg did you not and you also said that
"early post flood " is the best "we
can date neanderthal/Swanscombe at the moment. Hence
my deduction of the date of 2247 BC. But if you can
substanciate the date of 1897 BC that's just fine
and maybe I can put it on my industry and chronology
table for Britain and Ireland. You see Dan you have
given me or maybe challenged me to improve my
chronology and that is indeed exactly what I need to
do so we need to work at this together. Mike Fischer
tells me that trying to date or pin down ancient
chronologies is like "trying to Grasp
smoke"; But nevertheless if you can
substanciate the date of 1897 BC then I guess we're
laughing so to speak. I like your choice of words.
For example "Sleuth" I must say that that
tickles me and it's avery funny word. Sounds like
Larry Pierce might have the corect date for nailing
the earliest neanderthals. John

DJ to JHF

"Mike Fischer tells me that trying to date
or pin down ancient chronologies is like
"trying to Grasp smoke"."
Mike could not have said it more clearly.
Why can't we stick with taking the dates that Bill
Cooper has established because he has done a lot
of research to substantiate them and then give
date ranges for all dates 1500 BC and earlier?
Why can't there be a focus on establishing date
ranges and then providing narrative on what
various historians, past and present are
saying concerning dating and then we can all be
more comfortable with deciding for ourselves if we
think a given date prior to 1500 BC has any merit.

Usher could be wrong. The Septuigent and the
Masoric text are vastly different in lengths of
recorded lifespans. Is either text 100%
accurate. I do not yet know. Do you
know? If we do not know this how can we
agree 100% with Usher?

JXF to BILL COOPER

Dear Bill much as I feel tempted to print the
date in my industry and chronology table for the
earliest neanderthals in Britain of annomundi 1757
and 2247 BC from the simple reading of the Genesis
text chapters 9 verses 18 and 19
and 10 verses 1 to 5 I have at the moment to be
very careful before I "jump the Gun" on
this although I know that you and Philip Bell are
in agreement with my interpretation of these
verses. But Dan Janzen thinks that this could be a
"presumptive interpretation " of
finding evidense for neanderthals that is the
earliest ones mentioned in these verses. At any
rate it doen't say neanderthals but the fact that
they were japethites and could have become
decultured during the post flood ice age when they
reached the "iles" So you see at the
moment I don't want to offend Danny because he has
been very good to me and given me much
encouragement as you will see below and it shows
that my table for Britain and Ireland is correct
and exactly as it is exhibited in my table So for
now I have agreed to keep it as it is without
printing the word Neanderthal in the devision
colum of my table. I think that what Dan Janzen
means is that it would probably be presumptive to
assume that there was a migration before Babel for
which I think you'd aggree the simple reading of
Genesis chapters 10 and nine implies. As you know
Bill Dan Janzen and Mr Charles S Kimball believe
the Neanderthals to be of Hamitic and cainanite
stock and maybe up to a point they are right ; but
what I would respectfully say to them is that
Genesis 9 and 10 reveal the first ones to be
Japethites and indeed note this word "devided".
And this is precisesly what happened at the birth
of Peleg with these dates it would give us exactly
as you say from 2247/42 BC through to 1145 BC
exactly just over 1000 years for the post flood
rapid ice age. Just thought Bill I'd keep you
updated as things are begginning to fit exactly as
I predicted they would do and looking extreemly
interesting. I don't want you to worry about any
of this but just treat it as an interesting item
of news from this author. You take take good care
of yourself Bill and I wish you all the very best
of wishes. merry Christmas and happy new Year and
God bless : John

MIGRATION BEFORE BABEL

DJ

Sure there probably was some migration prior to
Babel. I think it is possible that the
Japethites may have already been exploring and
settling some of the coastal areas since there
would have been a need for supply of minerals
& raw materials, furs, ivory, preciious
stones, spices, etc. We can only speculate.
Also you can look at Craig Whites work and see
that there seems to be an absense of decendants of
Japeph in the region of the Fertile Cresent.
I do not derive this from chap. 9 & 10 but
from Craig's work, and common sense. You
need to show exactly why you believe that the
passages indicate an early migration. Nimrod
would have needed a trade network to supply his
empire and the sea is the best means for moving
trade goods from more distant regions. There
is some evidence that a Sumerian presence reached
clear to South America--possibly ancient Ophir and
gold prospectin--who can know. Brasil/
Brazil is a name associated with iron and it
was known from very early times.

JXF to LARRY PIERCE
Larry why does Genesis 10 verse 5 say that they the japethites were divided in their lands
and nations in the ilses of the Gentiles if there was no pre-Babel migration imeMdiatEly
after the flood. Bill Cooper reckons I've made a good interpretation of that verse. Can
you show me Larry where I misinterpreted it or got it wrong from the Genesis text? John

LP TO JXFJohn Gill's Expositor on Gen 10:5 Ver. 5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided
in their lands, &c.] That is, by those sons of Japheth before mentioned; and by "isles"
are meant, not countries surrounded with water, for the isles in this sense would
not have been sufficient for the posterity of Japheth; nor can it be thought they would
leave the continent, where there was room enough for them, and go into islands; and besides
must have found it difficult to get there, when shipping and navigation were little known:
but it is usual with the Hebrews, of whom Moses, the writer of this history, was, to call
all places beyond the Mediterranean sea, or whatsoever they went to by sea, or that were
upon the sea coasts, islands, as Greece, Italy, &c. Moreover, the word sometimes signifies
countries, as it does in #Job 22:30 Isa 20:6 and so should be rendered here, as it is by
some {y}, "the countries of the Gentiles"; so called, because in the times of Moses, and at
the writing of this history, those countries were inhabited by Heathens and idolaters,
strangers to the true religion: and this division was not made at random, and at the pleasure
of a rude company of men, but in an orderly regular manner, with the consent, and by the advice
and direction of the principal men of those times; and especially it was directed by the wise providence of the most High, who divided to the nations their inheritance, and set the bounds of the people, #De 32:8. everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations; this shows, that what is said concerning the division of countries to the sons of Japheth is by way of anticipation; and that, though thus related, was not done till after the confusion of languages, since the partition was made according to the different languages of men; those that were of the same language went and dwelt together, the several nations of them, and the several families in those nations; by which it appears that this was done by consultation, with great care and wisdom, ranging the people according to their tongues; of which nations were formed, and with them were taken the several families
they consisted of. {y} Mywgh yya "regiones gentium," Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Patrick.

JXF to LARRY PIERCELarry I've found something interesting where this email mentions "A Rude
company of Men". Is it at all possible that the children of Ham of whom were
heathen could have inhabited the coastlands of the isle of the gentiles;
because we are told in Genesis that Cainaan shall be "Aservant of servents
unto his Bretheren" So could they have been the original Neanderthals. It
certainly sounds feasable. John . By the way Larry many thanks for thiS
info. Most interesting. John
*Only one was cursed and he inhabited Palestine.
Thank you.
... Larry Pierce

JXT TO DJan down below here is something interesting involbing the days of Peleg at
Genesis 10 verse 5 and it looks as though larry Pierce has provrd both of us
wrong in assuming neanderthal/cromagnon to have been early post flood ie
2247 BC. But there seems to be something mentioned about a "rude band of
men. Could these be hamites/neanderthal? John.

DJ TO JXF
I am having trouble following your reasoning regarding Larry proving both of
us wrong. I still think that CroMagnon & Neanderthal as per Bill Cooper
were shortly after the flood. Whether it was before or after the Tower of
Babel is not something that is easily determined and should not be the focus
of our efforts. I do not think you can read into those verses as much as is
being read into them. We have to do our homework and amass more information
before we can make those types of determinations.
John you are up to setting exact dates which I have warned you that that
will cause you to loose respect. We have very little to go by except Bill
Cooper's very good work. The rest of these dates are just guesses unless
someone can show me that they have a very good foundation. Bill is the only
one that has convinced me that they have done their homework.
I have never endorsed any date before 1500 BC except to make a point with
you.
Bill gave your paragraph a very cursory endorsement. He does not have much
time to comment or critique your work. Don't read too much into it.
I may be misinterpreting Larry but these statements do not make a whole lot
of sense. Larry does make a good point for the isles as being lands beyond
the seas (any sea for that matter)--not necessarily islands but they did
settle many islands such as the Agean islands & others in the Meterranian.
They were famous for early sea travel. Why Larry believes that shipping and
navigation were little known beats me. They would have explored the entire
earth very early on and the Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Hapgood nearly
proves this point. Their level of navigation was probably not surpassed
until some time in the 17th or 18th century.
"for the isles in this
sense would not have been sufficient for the posterity of Japheth; nor can
it be
>thought they would leave the continent, where there was room enough
for
>them, and go into islands; and besides must have found it difficult to
get
>there, when shipping and navigation were little known"
To Larry Pierce : re dates of creation

Dear Larry after having studied that paper you sent me as an attachment I have since
found out where Mike Gascoigne got his date of creation of 3963 BC from. Quite clearly
he's used the jewish annomundi calender date of >creation at 3763 BC and simply added another
200 years without adding the >shortfall of 41 extra years and this is where he's slipped up.
He has >dated Abraham at 1948 annomundi making him borne in 2015 BC as per the
jewish calander but we both know from Ussher that there is another shortfall of 60 years to
add on so I'm intrigued to know where he finds the date for Partholan at 1969 annomundi and on
this calender 1994 BC. >This works out at 313 years after the flood according to Mike Gascoigne
when mine and Bills date is 2520 annomundi and 1484 BC. This leaves a big >gap of over 500 years
between bill Cooper;s chronology and Gascoigne's . >John Post script: The only thing we're left
with is the possible >pre-Babel migration of some of the Japethites arriving in the Isles of
the Gentiles and divided in their nations and families cultures &c at this time or at least on
the coastlands. This I have featured on my website at ><http://www.johnhextfremlin.com>
www.johnhextfremlin.com for discussion >purposes only and sepeaate from my time line alowing me a
little room for >speculation in this separate file where all you need to do is click on >
<http://www.johnhextfremlin.com>www.johnhextfremlin.com and click on the >section "Days of Peleg".
This is a discussion on Genesis chapter 9 verses >18 and 19 and chapter 10 verses one to five and
verse five being the most >important verse and note the word divided.. It is my belief that after
having made a simple and straight forward reading of the Genesis text in these particular chapters
that the migration from Arrarat by Noah immediately after the flood was the one which was started by
Noah and timed >to coincide with a significant event in 2247 BC. ! That event being the division
of cultures families; land &c and up till this time the whole >earth was of one language ; speech and
culture. So if we eliminate Gascoigne's supposed 313 years after the flood we have Bill's historic
date for Britain and Ireland of 2520 am and 1484 BC and the earliest neanderthal/japethites in 2247 BC.
I checked this out coincidentally with Answers in Genesis in Leicester and they told me most
neanderthal/cromagnon date from this period and endorsed my date of 2247 BC and 1757 annomundi so
it is just possible that this could be so. John

DW TO JXF

Now to get to your real question, Neanderthals and Heinsohn's research. It
is certainly an interesting thought.

I can't think of a way to say this gently, to me this all seems like
non-sense. Using secular terms tends to give credence to their framework.
Innately, I find secular scholarship so poor, so confused, and so
misleading, that I attempt to avoid using the terms except when certain
evidence must be presented. I say this just to let you know were my mind is
on the topic and so you can hopefully be tolerant when I lash out, I do not
say this to discourage your research.

Archeology: to use or acknowledge the terms Bronze Age, the Iron Age
implies evolution. We know that Iron kilns were found immediately after the
flood and used at various point all during ancient history. Sorry, I just
will not use the terms unless discussing one piece of evidence, and then
only for reference.

Anthro: to use the sequence Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Co-Magnon again
implies an evolutionary sequence. Nothing I have read suggests this is
valid (but then, I seldom read on the topic). In Creation Science, Gish,
Lubennow, and Bowden have all suggested that the bones are either Men or
Apes. No Transitions. Men are Men.
I doubt seriously if the evolutionary sequence can provide us with anything
but confusion in the study of the dispersion from Babel, that historical
documents will be much more effective.

Finally, My Answer:

In "Buried Alive", Jack Cuozzo provides an interesting hypothesis on
Neanderthal and Swanscombe Man. He suggests that they were long lived and
the extreme features are primarily a result of this long life. see

If so, then I would agree with Dan's early dates, since those born in the
first few hundred years after the flood lived very long lives. But most of
these very long lived people (300+ years) would have died by 1800 BC, then
the long lived people (200+ year) would have died by about 1600 BC.

After that, one would expect to see remains that are more like the remains
of humans today, except they were likely more intelligent than we are
(genetic burden was not so significant a problem). Any other differences
are probably just ethnic difference. (Which is what I think you are
suggesting).

CAVE MAN

Kimball mentions some obvious thing about wild men and equates them with
cave men. Some other thoughts would be that after the flood:

1. Men would seek exceptional land situations in their alloted area. Thus
they would scatter in relatively small population groups.
2. Dinosaurs roamed the wild. You just didn't build a grass hut to protect
you at night. In the middle east, they built high walls - just as much to
protect from wild animals as to protect from other humans. Caves provided
an ideal protection until walled cities could be built, so good that many
delayed in building walls.
3. Some men, seeking freedom from tyrants (nimrod, etc.) would flee to the
wild. Cave were ideal for them.

Conclusion:
I study the dispersion of men from Babel as you do, but I feel uncomfortable
using the evolutionary terms for men. I suspect that the early men were
primarily different because they were long lived. I hope I may have said
something which will be of value to you.

Darrell

PS. Added note to previous email, the dispersion was not in 2242 BC, that is
a mistake in interputation of the documents.

Dear John,

I have been following with interest your
progress

in establishing a timeline for the misty distant
past.

Thanks for the picture of the red-haired
Neanderthal

child; the message is already getting out.

Dr. Cuozzo's find of an Egyptian microcarving is
a

call to begin investigating. You already know
well

the significance of Swanscombe. In archaeology

and geology it is important to determine whether

evidence is original to a place and time or
whether

it was brought in much later. In the case of
the

microcarving, the British governed the Middle
East

for many years, and artifacts were brought back

to England. The microcarving might or might not

have been one of them. Having been found on

or near the surface, the possibility of recent

origin is enhanced. Yet no conclusion should be

drawn now. Let's see what else is waiting to

be found. Good hunting, indeed.

Mike Fischer

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES AFTER THE FLOOD

On 7/19/08, john hext-fremlin wrote:

Hi Darrell Can you say with any certainty at what date
BC Sidon and his men came to Britain to mine for tin and copper before the
devision in Peleg's day? In order for me to compile a history of Denmark
Germany and Northwestern Europe as a whole; it would be of interest to know
when and exactly where the sidonian Phonicians mined for copper and tin
before any loss of metal working technologies such as Bronze and Iron
working. Would it have been between 2260 and 2248 BC? Having in mind that
I'd conjecture that some but not all of the metal working technologies were
lost in Peleg's day about 2247 BC when some of the tribes who degenerated at
that time were forced to work with flint stone and other materials besides
metal. John

Darrell

On 7/19/08, Darrell White
wrote:

John,

I've been on a short trip and just got back.

I really have not thought much about that so I can not say anything at this
time. Still studing about Abion and such.

However, here are a few thoughts:

1) Lost of Technology: some thoughts come to mind.

a) we certainly know that very advanced Iron working was done just
after the flood and possibly was known by some few for many centuries after
the flood. For example, the smelting - metal working furnaces near Mt.
A would have been within decades after the flood. Very Advanced
Technology, but a limited supply of metal was available.

b) how was technology transfered to those after the flood. In
many ancient accounts I read that a book or books of knowledge was brought
along in the ark. Additionally, any skills which the 8 people on the
ark had would have been transfered by them to their families. It would
seem to me that the most logical time for many technologies to be lost would
be after the tower of babel incident in 2192/2191 BC. Some say 70
nations and languages. So most nations would loose skill A, while only
a few would still retain skill A because they had learned it before the
division. With each group, different skill set would have been lost.
The more advance things, requiring the knowledge of 3 or 4 different
specialists may have been lost entirely to all groups from babel except
those with the book (if it existed).

Most of those which fled to the wilderness to avoid the rebellion (babel)
against God would have lost most all metal working ability. These are
those that degenerated quickly to stone age technologies.

c) working with stone rather than metal.

During the World Survey prior to the division of the world between the sons
and grandsons, some advanced tools would have been used, but being precious,
they would not likely be left behind and thus not likely to be found
by archeologists.

But most of the survey team would probably have to create stone tools on the
spot to aid them in their work. Being relatively easy to create, many
of these would have been left behind and thus found by archeologists.
A little latter, when the hunting groups wandered, stone impliments would be
created. If any of these groups had metal tools, they would not
have been left behind, but passed down from generation to generation until
they became common place.

d) Now Sidon colonized in an area which legend suggests had a very
advance civilization. They knew how to sail the open seas, they had
the math needed to navigate and map the world, but the civilization would
not be advance without metal working.

We also know that Sidon's sons were very strong and powerful men (like
blacksmiths often appear) and that they were placed in important places in a
quest to dominate a vast part of the world. In the War of the
Titan, they were defeated by Nimrod (Osiris, Ninus) and after his death, by
Hercules.
Thus, with Sidon's objectives, they were not very likely to share their
knowledge.

e) As for mining. During the world survey (which I speculate
occurred), I would expect that many mineral deposits were found and small
samples taken. I'm sure some secrets were kept also.

Gales (in south Spain) became colonized before the Babel event. I
would speculate this was a mining port for minerals in Spain and
Britain, etc. (Gales is mentioned as a landmark in the division
discription.)

Certainly, mining occurred before the Babel event in 2192 BC. I
would suggest that small amounts of mining in Britain occurred before 2208
BC (when Ireland was claimed by the family of Nin). It may have
occurred even before that - a rich surface deposit might have mined
shortly after the survey, but I doubt if it got any further than Gales and
may never have been known to anyone other than Sidon's family.

These are some random thoughts, however, we should keep our eyes open for
more supportive evidence. I have seen some evidence that might help
narrow down the date for the actual division of the world between the
sons and grandsons.

I hope these thoughts stimulate your thoughts.

Darrell

On 7/20/08, john
hext-fremlin wrote:

Hi Darrell that's most interesting; so we now know that
while Cichol Gricenchos and his men were fishing and hunter gathering &c
that the family of Nimrod were actually coming to mine for copper tin &c
to Britain before 2208 BC when they claimed Ireland on a small scale, When
was Gales (South Spain ) actually colonised as a port for minerals between
there and Britain? John

A
mixed economy?

On 7/15/08, Darrell White
wrote:

Hi John,
.

I am re-reading HLH in order to add more nations to my comprehensive
chronology.

HLH seems to have made many mistakes in attempting to match Hebrews to all
the nations rather than to just let history tell him what happened - usually
bad name associations. Yet such a wealth of references and many good
deductions also.

HLH (Volume 2: Chapter 8) also takes the position that Hercules (the
one who killed Albion) was from about 1758 to 1739 BC. Hercules is
suppose to have killed Gerion, the giant dominating Spain just before the
incident with Albion.

Yet HLH's deductions seem inconsistent:

1) Gerion is suppose to be the 7th generation from Ham. Comparing
generations to Shem's lineage, that would suggest that Gerion (with a life
expectancy of about 220 years) would have been born about 2155 BC and would
have died (if not killed before) no latter than 1935 BC. Vs. 1849 BC
for HLH.

2) HLH mistakenly uses the Toltec date of 2236 AM and 520 years after the
flood to point to the battle in Spain. Hence 1716 year from man
to the flood vs 1656 based on ussher. 60 years off.
a) Since the Toltec's measured time in terms
of Venus or 104 years, it is suspect that they rounded off their dates to
even increments. 104 /2 = 52. 33 eras times 52 years = 1716
years. 520 year = 10 eras of 52 years. So HLH takes his date for
the flood of 2369 BC - 520 and gets 1849 BC for the battle and death of
Gerion. He then has to invent an Osiris III to match the accounts of
the ancient chroniclers.

b) But the Toltec state they left 104 years before
they arrived in Mexico 520 years after the flood. Now 104 is 2 eras of
52 (doubtful - I suggest rounding). That means they left 2348 BC -520
+ 104 = 1932 BC.
They fits my estimate much better.

c) But Atlantis information suggests that it
was when Sidon died that they left, not when Antaeus (whom most id
as Atlas, son of Sidon) whom Hercules killed in Libya (before Spain)
died. I estimated that Sidon lived to the 1935 BC time frame which
matches the above date for departure. Sidon did not die in the War of
the Titan's as Atlas the first did.

Thus I still have confidence that our date estimate for Albion is more
reasonable and fits history better without inventing a new Osiris the
third. It is more logical that Gerion died shortly after Atlas and
shrotly before Albion.

Darrell

On 7/15/08, john
hext-fremlin wrote:

Hi Darrell yes I've noticed a lot of inconsistencies
with HLH's dates> About the only consistent one I can think of is his
date for arrival in Britain of Samothes; some of whom you have sugGested
were Huntergatherers. A most probable conjecture might be a "Mixed
Economy" of huntergathering and agriculture. Darrell:- It would be
interesting to know whether the Sidonians under Sidon came to Britain before
the DIvision in Peleg's day and mined for tin and copper before they lost
any of the metal working technologies. Thus 2248 BC 1year before Peleg might
be a good date for this before they got lost in the hinterlands. I always
place 2247 BC as the date when some of the technology was lost. John

AMENDMENT

On 7/17/08, john
hext-fremlin wrote:

Darrell did Sidon's men ever get to Britain before the
dIvision in Peleg's day 2247 BC; say one year before in 2248 and mine for
copper and tin before they lost the technology which I usually put down to
2247 BC when some but not all of the technology was lost? John

Dear Graham and Darrell please note that on your
expert consultations Darrell I have ammended the Ice Planet strike to the
Days of Peleg THU

S:- This
has been ammended from 2191 BC to 2247 BC being as Madai found his land
covered in Ice (Genesis appocraphon), Days of Peleg (Peleg bourne annomubdi
1757) Earth Devided (Possible Ice Plannet Strike) and begginnings of Stone
age cultures